Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:25:25 +0800 | From | Michael Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug() |
| |
On 09/14/2012 11:02 AM, Michael Wang wrote: > On 09/13/2012 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> >>> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug: >>> >>> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002 >>> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1. >>> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34 >>> [ 0.045861] Call Trace: >>> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70 >>> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10 >>> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450 >>> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70 >>> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90 >>> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0 >>> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30 >>> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70 >>> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30 >>> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50 >>> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370 >>> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0 >>> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0 >>> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310 >>> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744 >>> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50 >>> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680 >>> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c >>> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c >>> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f >>> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c >>> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10 >>> >>> It was caused by that: >>> >>> native_smp_prepare_cpus() >>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++ >>> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs >>> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check >>> might_resched() >>> __schedule() >>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++ >>> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug >>> >>> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted >>> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug. >>> >>> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check >>> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> >>> --- >>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c >>> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c >>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c >>> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev) >>> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now. >>> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be. >>> */ >>> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state)) >>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state >>> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING)) >>> __schedule_bug(prev); >>> rcu_sleep_check(); >>> >> >> >> No this is very very wrong.. we avoid the might_sleep bug on ! >> SYSTEM_RUNNING because while we _might_ sleep, we should _never_ >> actually sleep under those conditions. >> >> So hitting a schedule() here is an actual bug. > > I see, so the rule is that we never allowed invoke schedule() with > preempt disabled. > > The actual reason trigger this bug is that: > we invoke irq_alloc_descs() which will use mutex_lock() while > !SYSTEM_RUNNING. > And mutex_lock() invoke the might_sleep(), which do the schedule() > without any warning. > > So if we want to follow the rule, should_resched() should never return > true if preempt disabled. > > I think we could do changes like: > > > > index c46a011..36fe510 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield) > > static inline int should_resched(void) > { > - return need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE); > + return need_resched() && !preempt_count(); > } > > static void __cond_resched(void) > > > > Then the should_resched() will return false when the preempt disabled or > PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit is on. > > Could we use this solution?
Let me send out the patch so we could have a thread to discuss, but please warn me if it's a totally foolish one...
Regards, Michael Wang
> > Regards, > Michael Wang > >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >> >
| |